Asked the attorney as we looked at an illegally constructed deck on google earth.
A: We need to verify this blurry image is in fact a deck. A drone could fly up and take a photo, don't you have one?
Me: Why no, drones are illegal for commercial use.
A: I have some friend who work for real estate companies, and they have drones for photographs.
Me: Good for them, I will not get one until the FAA regulates them for commercial applications and I have the correct certification, documentation and insurance to properly comply with the FAA regulations that are currently being written.
A: Oh.
Me: Your friends will probably be ok, but if not they could see a $10k fine.
Moral of the story: A 300 mm lens on a DSLR could pick up the deck in full detail without trespassing or flying a drone.
Maybe BINGs birdseye view would do?
Wait until a surveyor encounters an attorney like this in court. Surveyor being questioned about apparent lines of occupation in the aerial photo versus his survey. Aerial photo by drone has been superimposed on county GIS and introduced into evidence with testimony of person supplying the photo service. While questioning the accuracy of the survey drawing attorney injects you should be using a drone to improve your accuracy.
The previous exchange regarding FAA permits becomes the remainder of the testimony. May produce interesting results.
I often forget Bing.
It was constructed after the bird's eye image on Bing.
Thank you though.
I would take that like GPS. I was opposite a surveyor who used a handheld to locate some trees in the woods. When I got on the stand, I made sure the attorney asked me specific questions so I could state: Handheld, huh, no wonder all those coordinates were off by 10m.
Prennez Garde
YOS
DGG
If you do a Google search for aerial photos by drone you will get many hits. I wonder why the FAA has only gone after one guy (and lost) and hasn't fined the many companies out there.
The only drone down in spledeus's area is the sound of his voice when he goes on and on and on..... JK Thadd 🙂 Say, wait until you hear of our next meeting Jan 8th!
Dtp
Prennez Garde
Impartiality of the witness would be a part of the problem. The rest of the problem would be that the attorney had introduced into evidence material that was obtained by violating FAA rules and may have violated laws. Also the "expert" using the drone would have admitted under oath to that violation and the court may be required by law to refer that testimony to federal officials.